Vidqun:
Cofty, I wanted Viv to follow the reasoning, and point out flaws, if any. She's the expert, don't you know?
In any case, here's a summary:
Laws of information and information science are the following:
1) Anything material such as physical/chemical processes cannot create something non-material. E.g., information.
2) Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
3) Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission (E.g. books, CD, DVD, etc.).
4) Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
5) There can be no information without code.
6) All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
7) The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence.
8) There can be no new information without an intelligent purposeful sender.
9) Any give chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source (E.g. radio announcer, radio waves, radio).
10) Information comprises the non-material foundation for all
The problem with these "laws" of information is that when they use the word "information" it does not relate to any known definition. For instance, let's take Shanons definition of information (which is the most relevant one), in that definition a source of information *is* a statistical process and so "Information cannot originate in statistical processes." would seem to explicitly rule out Shannon information.
In other words, the laws are not only unproven, what they reflect is what the author *wish* for information to be, without ever checking if those wishes relate to anything in the real world. It is no better then me speculating about how colors *ought* to behave and concluding optics is wrong because it describe colors in a way I don't like.